Supreme Court quashes Gujarat FIR against Imran Pratapgarhi; says free speech can't be judged as per standards of insecure persons

In a shot in the arm for free speech, the Supreme Court on Friday criticised the Gujarat Police for lodging a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem uploaded by him on social media. .The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the FIR and also emphasised that the freedom of speech and expression trumps the restrictions permissible on the same and the offence of promoting enmity between religious groups under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be invoked based on the standards of insecure people who take offence at every slight criticism. "Police officers being citizens are bound to uphold the rights. When offence under Section 196 BNS, it cannot be judged as per the standards of weak minds or those who always perceive every criticism as an attack on them. This has to be judged on the point of courageous minds. We have held that when an offence is alleged on the basis of spoken or uttered words, section 173(3) of BNSS has to be resorted to in order to protect fundamental right," the Court held.Constitutional courts should be at the forefront to protect the constitutional rights and free speech is most cherished right, the Bench added..The Court added that the police officers are bound to uphold the rights of people and the offence under Section 196 BNS has to judged by the Standards of strong and courageous individuals."This has to be judged on the point of courageous minds. We have held that when an offence is alleged on the basis of spoken or uttered words, section 173(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has to be resorted to in order to protect fundamental rights," the Court said.Section 173(3) of BNSS provides that on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police should conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter and proceed with investigation only when there exists a prima facie case..Offence under Section 196 BNS cannot be judged as per the standards of weak minds or those who always perceive every criticism as an attack on them.Supreme Court.Pratapgarhi was booked by Gujarat Police based on a complaint filed by an advocate’s clerk, who alleged that the MP had shared a video on social media featuring a poem—“Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno…”—playing in the background.Gujarat Police had invoked Sections 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 299 (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 302 (uttering words to wound religious sentiments) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). On January 17, the Gujarat High Court had declined to quash the FIR, prompting Pratapgarhi to approach the Supreme Court. During the hearings of the case, the Supreme Court had remarked that the poem was not anti-religious or anti-national and that police officials must show some sensitivity and understand the meaning of freedom of speech and expression..In its judgment today, the Court underscored the importance of freedom of speech and expression."Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilized society, Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution," the Court stated.In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or a group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view, the Bench added.Further, the Court also underlined the importance of literature, drama and satire as expressions of free speech."Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful. The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the rights guaranteed under Constitution of India," the judgment said..Pertinently, the Court held that the reasonable restrictions permissible on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution cannot be fanciful and cannot overshadow right to free speech itself under Article 19(1) of the Constitution."Article 19(2) cannot overshadow 19(1) and cannot be fanciful," the Bench said..[Read Live Coverage]